Herménégilde BOULAY

BOULAY, Herménégilde, LL.B.

Personal Data

Party
Conservative (1867-1942)
Constituency
Rimouski (Quebec)
Birth Date
March 20, 1861
Deceased Date
May 18, 1942
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herménégilde_Boulay
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=8c3f1b44-33c3-456b-92a4-2d9ab84b0e8c&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
farmer, manufacturer, merchant, trader

Parliamentary Career

September 21, 1911 - October 6, 1917
CON
  Rimouski (Quebec)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 76 of 77)


March 19, 1912

Mr. BOULAY (Translation):

I regret

that the hon. member for Richmond should have taken such a stand. He stated, among other things, 'that we had vowed that never Messrs. Hughes iand Sproule would be members of the government. I never said anything 'to 'that effect in my constituency. I >deny outright having ever said anything of the kind. I had no business to say so, for this very good reason that I knew I would not be called upon to lead the government of the country.

These gentlemen have their opinion as I have mine, and these opinions are entitled to respect. As far as the militia expenses are concerned, I agree with the objections raised against those expenses. The policy upon which we have made the last election in 1911 was partly on the reduction of the expenses for the militia. We specially objected to the establishment of the naval service, and we said also that the expenses for the militia were too high. We said that in 18% the 'Liberal-Conservative party was expending only $1,500,000 for the .militia, whereas in 1911, under .a Liberal government, those expenses were of $7,000,000. As far as I am concerned, I am quite willing to take the responsibility of my preelection statement and to renew them before the House. Those expenses are too high and, were the hon. Minister of Militia ready to reduce them, I would surely give him my hearty support.

I say as I already said in my county, that the militia appropriations are too high as compared with what 'we give to the agriculture. Neither can I approve the item for automobiles. I fail to see their usefulness in the military service. I am quite willing to condemn now such a policy, the same as I did during the last elections, according to our programme. I do not deny what I said then, and I say that the hon. minister should reduce this expense.

iMr. TOBIN. Will the hon. minister allow me to put a question?

If I understood him right, he thinks that the expenses for the militia are too high.

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   OLIVER WILCOX.
Full View Permalink

March 19, 1912

Mr. BOULAY (Translation).

Yes, they are too high; and they were thus been increased under the Liberal government. I am ready to condemn such an expense, even when it is made by the present government.

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   OLIVER WILCOX.
Full View Permalink

March 12, 1912

Mr. BOULAY.

ada, he exclaimed: ' I would be happy, he said, to see that million and a half of French Canadians increase three-fo'ld. I would be happy to see them increase to any extent, for I know what they are worth to the country. What I now say, I say it as a Protestant and a Canadian.' Such utterances are very different from those which were dealt out by the McCarthys end the O'Briens and the Sproules, utterances which were assented to by the hon. leader of the opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and confirmed subsequently many a time by his own statements and dealings in 1905. It is only in the Conservative party that there is to he found feelings of loyalty, a spirit of toleration and fairness, noble sentiments, which Sir Wilfrid Laurier endeavoured so strenuously to defeat, and which he succeeded in defeating through the sinister obstruction he led against the carrying of the remedial bill, together with his allies, a number of Orangemen. However, it is after listening to these fine sentiments uttered by a Protestant that twenty-five of our compatriots of the province of Quebec, among whom I notice the name of Bourassa, had the heart to approve the Laurier amendment for the hoisting of the remedial bill on March 20, 1896. At that same sitting of March 17, McCarthy exclaimed,-repeating the words of Sifton, another persecutor of separate schools, another close friend of our great fellow-citizen, whom he will seek later on and make a cabinet minister as a reward for having inflicted such ill-treatment on our coinpatroits,-McCarthy exclaimed that . separate schools managed as they were in 1890 were utterly indefensible as regards the instruction they imparted, an unjustifiable reflection, for our schools compare advantageously with any others. And farther on, referring to the stand taken by the province of Quebec in regard to Protestant schools, he added:

The non-Catholics of Quebec have nothing to fear for themselves, in case Manitoba should maintain its stand in favour of public schools, for to apeak of reprisals on the part of the majority is absurd.

We are requested from every quarter to protect the rights of the minority in connection with the annexation of the territory of Keewatin. We are told that we should not follow in the footsteps of the traitors and wretches who did away with these rights in 1896 and 1905. It is all very well to -lay down principles; it is al'l very well to vindicate these courageously, vigorously, and better still to reap encomiums after falling on the battlefield, in the midst of the fray. But to distinguish one's self by such brilliant achievements, by such heroic deeds which lead to immortality, one must at least have the hope that they will ensure some practical result which will be of

actual advantage if not to the hero who sacrifices himself, at any rate to those who will come afterwards. Leonidas defending with his stalwarts the Thermop.ylae knew that he was courting certain death; but his country would be delivered thereby. Salaberry a.nd his men at Chateauguay were fighting under great disadvantages, and might well have been crushed by a much larger force, however, they retained some hope of winning the day. Cambronne at Waterloo answered back to the general who called on him to surrender, those historic words which are characteristic of that chivalrous French race of old, whose spirit still animates us, we the proud descendants of that gallant stock: ' Guardsmen may die, but surrender never.' Why should the French guardsmen who occupy seats in this House, why should that small phalanx of twenty Canadians be expected to accomplish what another French Canadian, with the support of fifty others, refused to do when the time had come to play the hero, and make sacrifices, and assert existing rights which had been confirmed by the highest court in the empire? Why should we be expected to do what a great Canadian supported by fifty others refused to do in 1905, while fortune was smiling upon him, and glory followed his flag and made the earth quake wherever it passed? Why should we be called upon to make such a sacrifice, when for fifteen consecutive years in the province of Quebec there has been a continuous round of applause for the great hero who was digging the grave wherein were buried all our fellow countrymen's rights to separate schools, and to the use of that French language which we learnt on our mother's lap and which has produced the finest literature known to the world?

Why should we be expected to protect rights which legal authorities declare to be non-existent, and which in any case are not interfered with by this Bill of they do exist?

In 1890, while Laurier was working hand in hand with McCarthy and other fanatics cf the same stripe, on this side of the House the Tuppers, the Northrups, the Hazens, the Fosters, the Haggarts and many others were defending the rights which it was still time to defend and safeguard.

But no, the French race will survive in spite of its oppressors; it has successfully pulled through the disasters of 1760 and the persecutions which have been its lot in the meantime, and the miserable dealings of Greenway will come to an end.

In 1896, I had faith in Laurier, a French Canadian and Catholic; I was confident at any rate that he would support by his vote and his eloquence the rights defended even by Protestants.

But no, his mongrel alliance with the twenty-four fanatics who still formed part of the conservative party, resulted in miserable obstructive tactics which prevented sanction being given to the remedial Bill, in spite of a message from His Grace Archbishop Langevin which read as follows: Bill workable, effective and satisfactory; I approve of it. All bishops and true Catholics should do the same. It means salvation. (Signed) Archbishop Langevin.

I shall now quote the following from the letter written by Rev. Father Lacomhe to Sir Wilfrid Laurier:

At this critioal period in connection with the Manitoba school question, allow an aged missionary, representing to-day the bishops of our country in this cause which interests all of us, to appeal to your faith, to your patriotism and to your spirit of fairness and to beg of you to comply with our request. It is in the name of our bishops, of the hierarchy and of the French Canadian Catholics, that we beg of your party, whose worthy leader you are, to help ns in obtaining a settlement [DOT]of this vexed question, and to settle it by voting with the government in favour of the remedial Bill. We are not asking yon to vote for the government, hut in favour of the measure which will restore to us our rights, and which will he submitted to the House in a few days, etc.

(Signed): A. LACOMBE,

OjM.I.

What shall we say of the stand taken by the leader of the opposition who refused to comply, who continued his agitation, the outcome of which was the defeat of the conservatives in 1896, but also the wiping out of the rights of our compatriots in the province of Manitoba?

With a political record such as the one I have described, should any reliance be put in the promises and policy of the liberal party? And are they making any promises? No, their party organs are making an onslaught, that is all. That is why I have' riot supported the Laurier amendment, and rightly so, as it was not serious.

^ Times have changed since the days when the two governments who are responsible for the passing and sanctioning of that unjust legislation of 1890 were holding the reins of power; both of them are now in their political grave. The distinguished gentleman who is now at the head of the Manitoba government is very well disposed, and we have every reason to depend on his faithfulness for which his record is sufficient pledge, while Sir Wilfrid Laurier had to deal with a fanatical government made up of his allies, and very badly inspired. Under such conditions failure was inevitable. Todhy, having dealt justly with Manitoba, having enlarged its frontiers, having granted the amounts request-

ed as subsidies, we expect from that province, not favours, but full and entire justice for our compatriots, and we shall be greatly disappointed if we fail in obtaining that.

I lay down as a principle that it is but fair that we should add that territory to this little province. After all, Keewatin is made a part of Manitoba with all her rights to the very act by which this province has been constituted, rights which have been trodden upon by Greenway's liberal government, but which still exist, having been ratified by the judgment of the Privy Council, and shall not cease to be claimed until they have been acknowledged'. Those same Tights exist for Keewatin and nothing but a new and nefarious legislation such as was adopted in 1890, could paralyse them if not absorb them and make them disappear. If this should happen, the same recourse to the federal parliament still exists as in 1896, for this territory, as it did exist for Manitoba, and were w

But no. We expect something better on the part of Manitoba. The wave of intolerance that has dashed upon that province in 1890, stirred up as it was. by the friends of the leader of the opposition, is lulling from day to day. The example of justice and equity whicn is set constantly by the province of Quebec impassible though she has to face this profligacy of fanatism shall, at last, make our compatriots of a different language and creed understand that the time ot moral and religious slavery must be over;, that the Catholics and the French must be granted the full measure of liberty to which they are entitled in this land of Canada. Shall we, the sons of those valiant knigihts who have discovered' the plains of the West; shall we, the brothers of tnose missionaries who have shed their blood on this territory of Canada, keep waiting in vam for a glimpse of liberty? Loudly do we beseech the province of Manitoba to open her doors wide open and make us Dreathe, at last, that liberty, a glorious attribute of the British flag.

From that day only shau we have peace in our country. One may check, one may restrain the exercise of a right for a time, for a long time even, but one cannot make it perish when it rests upon the Eolid basis of justice and of equity. I would ask my English-speaking compatriots who represent all parts of Canada, to repeat these words Mr. BOULAY.

to their electors: The day when the French language would cease to be written and spoken in this part of America which is called Canada, that day would mark the destruction and the ruin of the British flag, for, as somebody has so well said it before me, the last shot that shall be fired for the preservation of this country in behalf of the British crown shall be, fired by a French Canadian.

House divided on amendment of Mr. Mondou.

YEAS:

Messieurs

Barrette,

Belaud,

Bellemare,

Boyer,

Delisle,

Demers,

Ethier,

Guilbault,

Lamarche,

Lapointe (Kamouraska)., Lapointe (Montreal, St. James),

McCoig,

Ma rci 1 (Bona venture), Michaud,

Molloy,

Mondou,

Murphy,

Papineau,

Paquet,

Power,

Proulx,

Seguin,

Sevigny and Tobin,-24.

NAYS:

Messieurs

Achim,

Alguire,

Ames,

Armstrong (Lamfot Armstrong (York, Arthurs,

Ball,

Barker,

Barnard,

Beattie,

Bennett (Calgary), Bennett (Simcoe), Best,

Blain,

Blondin,

Boivin,

Borden,

Boulay,

Bourassa,

Bowman,

Brabazon,

Bradbury,

Broder,

Brouillard,

Brown,

Buchanan,

Burnham,

Burrell,

Cardin,

Carroll,

Carvell,

Chabot,

Champagne,

Chisholm (Antigonish), Chisholm (Inverness), Clare,

Clark (Bruce),

Clark (Red Deer),

Law,

Lemieux,

Lennox,

i),Lesperance,

'.), Lewis,

Lovell,

Macdonald,

Macdonell,

Maclean (Halifax), Maclean (York, 0.), MacNutt,

McCraney,

McCrea,

McCurdy,

McKay,

McKenzie,

McLean (Queen's, P.E.I.),

McLean (Sunbury), Marcile (Bagot), M'artin (Montreal, Ste. Mary's), Meighen,

Merner,

Middlebro,

Monk,

Morphy,

Munson,

Nantel,

Nesbitt,

Neely,

Nicholson,

Nickle,

Oliver,

Pacaud,

Paul,

Pelletier,

Perley,

Clarke (Wellington), Clements,

Cochrane,

Cockshutt,

Coder re,

Crocket,

Cromwell,

Crothers,

Ci uise,

Currie,

Davidson,

Devlin, t oherty,

Donnelly,

Douglas,

Elliot.

Elson,

Emmerson,

Fisher.

Fortier,

Foster (King's, N.S.), Foster (Toronto, N.), Fiipp,

Gauthier (Gaspe), Gauthier (St. Hyacinthe), Gauvreau,

Girard.

Goodeve,

Graham,

Hartt,

Hazen,

Henderson,

Hepburn,

Hughes (King'6, P.E.I.),

Hughes (Victoria, 0.) Jameson,

Kemp,

Kidd,

Knowles.

Lalor,

Lancaster,

Laurier (Sir Wilfrid) LavalMe,

Porter,

Pugsley,

Rainville,

Reid (Grenville),

Reid (Restigouohe), Rhodes,

Robb,

Robidoux,

Roche,

Rogers,

Ross,

Schafiner,

Sexsmith,

Sharpe (Lisgar), Sharpe (Ontario), Shepherd,

Sinclair,

Smith,

Stanfield,

Staples,

Steele,

Stevens,

Stewart (Hamilton), Stewart (Lunenburg), Sutherland,

Taylor,

Thoburn,

Thompson (Yukon), Thomson (Qu'Appelle), 'Thornton,

Tremain,

Turgeon,

Verville,

Walker,

W allace,

Warnock,

W ebster,

Weichel,

White (Renfrew), White (Victoria,

Alta.),

Wilcox,

Wilson

(Wentworth) and Wright.-160.

Amendment (Mr. Mondou) negatived.

Topic:   NEW BRUNSWICK SCHOOLS.
Full View Permalink

February 15, 1912

1. Does the government know that accusations of extreme gravitv are said to have been brought, at the time of the last elections, against Judge Tourigny, one of the judges of the Superior Court?

2. Does the government also know that Judge Tourigny has not replied directly to those alleged accusations and has not taken any proceeding whatever against his accuser?

3. In face of such a situation and the apparent unconcern on the part of a man thus publicly accused, does the government intend to take measures to assure itself of the truth or falsity of the accusations brought against Judge Tourigny?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   ACCUSATION AGAINST .JUDGE TOURIGNY.
Full View Permalink

February 15, 1912

1. Was Mr. Notary Beauchesne, of Paspe-biae, county of Bonaventure, dismissed as collector of customs, who has been collector at the same place since 1905? If so, what was the exact date?

2. For what reason and who requested his dismissal?

3. Is the collector of customs at Paspebiac, Mr. Marcil, a brother or a relative of the member for Bonaventure?

1. Who recommended the appointment of the present collector of customs at Paspebiac and on what grounds?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   COLLECTOR OP CUSTOMS AT PASPEBIAC.
Full View Permalink